What is this ‘You might also like’ clutter?

Ah, it hadn't occurred to me that it could be disabled. Thanks @LookItsMeAgain.

Just disabled the ridiculous feature.

I've disabled it so it no longer appears for me under a thread but that doesn't stop others resurrecting months (and sometimes years) old threads that really don't need to have a comment made on them at this point. Threads that I may have contributed to at some point in the past (when they were live and current) and these threads now re-appear in my "Threads I'm On" listing.

It's not a solution to just provide the hide the option link which I think should be available to EVERYONE at the time that they see the option (as in a little switch option that someone can click on to say "I don't want to see this again" and it links back into the individual profile) but MN Admins simply must do something to lock threads that are months and years old. Surely they have the technology to be able to have a button that says "Create a link to this thread in a new thread" and then the person could start a brand new thread with the hyperlink to the one they were reading in their opening post and they could start a new discussion, current, but without resurrecting the old one and posting on it???

That's my gripe with it too @EarringsandLipstick if you use the app these threads just reappear in your TIO with someone commenting on something that's now a month out of date. There's nothing you can do to stop it happening.

very few posters are bothered by this "other threads" thing. I don't even notice it any more now that it's underneath the posting box.

I came to start a thread about the 'you might be interested in ...' because what is is doing is reactivating not really zombie threads but threads from maybe a month or more asking about something current, the OP is finished with a thread and then someone clicks on it and types a pointless reply that is weeks out of date.

It's a really stupid feature; I use MN usually on the mobile app, so there's no 'you might be interested in' but thread after thread open is weeks / months old, with posters adding useless comments far after the OP had started the thread.

I know numerous others have said just allow posters to search, instead of this silly option; the nature of a chat forum is that threads move quickly and in general have a short life-cycle; this feature is really messing with the functionality of the site.

On a thread I posted on just now (about not being likeable), the first 3 linked threads were 18 months - 2 years old!

Justice was pretty rude as well tbh. She also confused clicks with popularity upon clicking.

I mean, someone was extremely rude to Justine when she simply pointed out that the number of clicks was far more than could ever be caused by the handful of people on this thread.

It doesn't mean that you aren't.

Especially when there appears to be a reluctance to hear any opposing view. I'll bow out now.

I’ve just been reading vicars handhold thread. She’s seriously unwell and 111 sent an ambulance.

As usual there’s a pile on of posters saying she shouldn’t have called 111, doesn’t need help if she can type, should drive herself to hospital if she really wants to but actually don’t go etc etc. Incredibly dangerous, as I’ve posted on the thread that these sort of comments made me doubt before getting help for dh when he needed it, and he would have died if I’d listened to those doubts.

At the bottom of this pile on there is the similar thread link. I haven’t clicked on any of the threads but can make an educated guess they will be full of the same. So instead of one thread of the dangerous posts saying stay at home, you now get 6 for the price of 1.

If MN are going to allow these posters to tell people not to call 111 or 999 to stand then at least stop these links to other threads full of them before somebody dies due to them. If that hasn’t already happened.

@SoupDragon

Lots and lots of posters aren't even aware that there are boards outside of AIBU and Chat (or whatever topic they use the most) so they wouldn't know that "site stuff" exists.

There were plenty of other threads with people saying they didn't like the feature.

Lots of people inadvertently resurrected zombie threads and were pretty annoyed when it was pointed out that they had been deliberately directed there by a MN link.

Just because there are only x posters on this thread doesn't mean that we are the only people that have concerns.

32 pages of how many posters? How many posters haven't complained?

yes, I think it's safe to assume it's very few across the whole site.

The thing is, we are unusual in coming here and saying we don’t like the feature. Most users will just engage less or leave quietly when they’ve been upset or bothered by something. So MNHQ will only really know the effects of change when they see changes in traffic, and then it’s hard to tie those changes to what’s been done to the site.

MN listen far more to their posters than other sites.

anyway, it's hardly a shocker that a business makes that business work to meet their own business goals 😂

very few posters are bothered by this "other threads" thing. I don't even notice it any more now that it's underneath the posting box.

Unfortunately it appears that from everything people have tried to point out, the priority nowadays is making the site work to meet their own business goals, and the end user experience is of secondary importance until people raise the roof and object to some very misguided design decisions. While we all keep posting and don't want to subscribe they won't have any incentive to adjust their priorities.

Well sure. I know it's probably the point from their POV. I'm just saying it's confusing/annoying from a user POV.

Then you're doing exactly what HQ are hoping you'll do, along with a high volume of other posters, and that's to create a significant amount of churn on here, to keep the site buzzing.

Another slight side effect I've noticed now - I posted on one of those threads that come up all the time (how often do you do laundry) and someone's obviously been on that current, active thread and clicked through to threads they may also like and revived a different laundry frequency thread, and I can't tell which is which in my TIO! So if I'm catching up without paying attention, there's a 50/50 chance I'll read and continue to post on the old one.

There was also a lovely thread that came up yesterday - 13 years old! - and someone asked for an update from OP and she delivered.

I don't want old threads locked/hidden. But agree that this feature does unnecessarily encourage people accidentally posting on the wrong/annoying kind of zombie thread.

I think that was how it worked in practice - it was originally for saving great threads from Chat as they used to disappear after 90 days. But MN has never been particularly technologically advanced, I'm sure it was a normal topic but convention/MNetiquette stopped people from posting in there directly. Since the site was smaller and everyone knew what it was for.

I could be remembering wrong though!

Can the coders not differentiate between threads that haven't been posted on for 30 days and threads that were started 30 days ago but are still being updated?

As whatever algorithm from Wish MNHQ have bought can’t tell the difference between funeral options for bereaved posters and Great British Bake Off, then I very much doubt they can be arsed to upgrade to one that can do this

It’s a blunt tool to drive traffic to ad exposure on multiple threads. That’s all they need it for, so that’s all they will shell out for it to do.

I still feel as though the issue of long running threads not coming up in trending at all and people being able to opt out of them on active is being ignored by MN, or being written off as acceptable collateral damage.

Can the coders not differentiate between threads that haven't been posted on for 30 days and threads that were started 30 days ago but are still being updated?

It's been in the works since at least 2020, so it would be great to get an update on how close it is to being implemented. I really hope no one signed up to premium on the hopes of it being added as an additional feature, as was mentioned back on the original MN premium annoucement thread.

@BIWI You're right, money must be the main reason, as it's certainly not something the users asked for or want on the site.

I agree. In fact, Site Stuff is the only topic board where I would say it’s pretty much guaranteed to be useful, and also save MNHQ time, rather than answering the same question on multiple threads. And there’s no sensitivity about the content. So having it in this section should be a no-brainer.

Can you please tell us why “similar threads” isnt in the Site Stuff threads?

this has been asked several times over the course of a week but MN seem to be ignoring the question - which is

if the feature is so useful, why isn’t it on Site Stuff threads, to point users to others experiencing similar problems?

@DrinkFeckArseGirls you can turn it off now though - go into your customise/settings bit.